Sam Bankman-Fried Appeals Fraud Conviction, Seeks New Trial

• Sam Bankman-Fried has appealed his fraud conviction and requested a new trial.
• SBF alleges that Judge Lewis Kaplan’s ruling against him was unfair and biased.
• The lawyers state that the judge frequently criticized and mocked SBF during the trial.

FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried, who has been imprisoned for fraud and conspiracy charges, appealed his fraud conviction and requested a new trial. The billionaire wrote in a 102-page brief filed on Friday that U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan’s judgment over the FTX collapse was unfair and biased.

FTX Fall and SBF’s Fraud

Following the FTX debacle that led to the prolonged crypto winter, Bankman-Fried was convicted of multiple counts of fraud and conspiracy charges, with some describing it as one of the biggest financial frauds in American history. While the seven charges totaled up to 115 years of prison sentence, SBF’s family and acquaintances pleaded for the judge’s leniency, citing his psychiatric conditions.

As per his mother Barbara Fried’s letter to the judge, SBF was suffering from Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). She stated that the imprisonment could further worsen his condition. George Lerner, Bankman-Fried’s psychiatrist, also corroborated her words, adding that SBF’s actions were not motivated by greed but by his psychiatric conditions. However, he was sentenced to 25 years in prison by Judge Kaplan.

Lawyers Question Judge’s Biased Ruling

In the recent brief, SBF’s lawyer Alexandra Shapiro, asserted that the judge restricted Bankman-Fried from producing certain defense arguments. He added that the judge made critical remarks, questioning the credibility of the defense and casting doubt on the defendant’s testimony in the presence of the jury. Further positing that the government presented a “false narrative” on FTX’s fall, the lawyer cited, “He [SBF] was presumed guilty by the judge who presided over his trial.”

SBF’s legal team alleged that the judge’s attitude towards Bankman Fried during the trial was prejudiced. They argued that the judge frequently criticized and mocked him, questioning his credibility and expressing skepticism about his testimony.